University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name T.R. v. South Carolina General Assembly and DOC PC-SC-0006
Docket / Court 2005-CP-40-02925 ( State Court )
State/Territory South Carolina
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Prison Conditions
Special Collection Solitary confinement
Case Summary
On June 10, 2005, mentally ill inmates filed a class action lawsuit in the Fifth Circuit Court of South Carolina, a state trial court, against the South Carolina Department of Corrections. The suit alleged that the defendant violated the South Carolina Constitution's ban on "cruel," "corporal" and " ... read more >
On June 10, 2005, mentally ill inmates filed a class action lawsuit in the Fifth Circuit Court of South Carolina, a state trial court, against the South Carolina Department of Corrections. The suit alleged that the defendant violated the South Carolina Constitution's ban on "cruel," "corporal" and "unusual punishment" as well as its duty to provide basic care for prisoners (a claim that was eventually dropped). The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief.

Specifically plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to properly treat plaintiffs' mental illnesses by refusing to transfer them to facilities equipped to treat them, only sporadically giving them needed antipsychotic medication (which leads the patients to horde the medication increase the risk of suicide and overdoses), and by excessively using solitary confinement which interferes with the treatment of their mental illness.

On November 1, 2007, the Circuit Court (Judge J. Michael Baxley), among other things, certified the case as a class action with the class consisting of as any mentally ill person who was incarcerated by the defendant since June 20, 2005.

On September 29, 2010, the Circuit Court (Judge Baxley) ruled on the standards that would govern the case. The Court ruled that the standards of Article I Section 12 of the South Carolina Constitution would be construed consistently with the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments"). The Court held plaintiffs must prove that there is a substantial risk of serious harm and the objective nature of that risk may be proved by deficiencies in the system of administration of the Department of Corrections. To determine if the defendant's system is insufficient the Court will consider the six factors laid following federal case law:
1. a systematic program for screening and evaluating inmates to
identify those in need of mental health care;
2. a treatment program that involves more than segregation and
close supervision of mentally ill inmates;
3. employment of a sufficient number of trained mental health
4. maintenance of accurate, complete, and confidential mental
health treatment records;
5. administration of psychotropic medication only with
appropriate supervision and periodic evaluation; and
6. a basic program to identify, treat, and supervise inmates at risk
for suicide.

The Court also found that the plaintiff's Article XII claims were not legitimate as the legislature was not a party to the action.

On January 8, 2014, the Circuit Court (Judge Baxley) ruled in favor of the plaintiff class, finding that the defendant acted with "deliberate" and knowing indifference towards the mentally ill in the Department of Corrections. Specifically, the Court found that: [1] the mental health care services were "severely" understaffed and many are unqualified resulting in inadequate screening and delays in care, [2] mentally ill inmates were exposed to disproportionate use of force and segregation without approval by psychiatrists through the use of solitary confinement that has caused the death of several inmates, [3] the defendant's does not have a complete process for tracking the treatment of mental ill inmates, [4] the defendant's mental health screening process does not identify all of the mentally ill inmates nor get those who are identified timely treatment, [5] the defendant's administration of psychotropic drugs is inadequately administered and evaluated, and [6] the defendant's crisis prevention system is inadequate and has resulted in the suicide of several mentally ill inmates. The Circuit Court ordered that the defendant create a plan for better administering the care of mentally ill prisoners based on the problems the court identified above. The court would have the power to approve or disapprove the plan. Once a plan was approved, the court would appoint a monitor to ensure the new plan was followed.

Over the next few months, the parties began negotiations on an improvement plan. In July of 2014, the defendants opened the Self-Injurious Behavioral Unit at the Kirkland Correctional Institution in Columbia. The unit was designed to facilitate faster responses to inmates who feel the need to harm themselves.

On January 15, 2015, following months of mediation, the parties announced that they had agreed to terms for a preliminary remedial plan. Specifically, the plan would phase in $8.2 million in funding over three years (pending legislative approval); calls for "significant" modifications to defendants' security policies and procedures; and requires the development of an improved staff training curriculum and a more appropriate staff culture. According to plaintiffs' counsel, the parties were aiming to reach full agreement on a plan and the revised policies by July 31, 2015.

Brian Kempfer - 02/14/2014
Dan Whitman - 04/04/2015

compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Constitutional Clause
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Mental impairment
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Bathing and hygiene
Classification / placement
Commitment procedure
Conditions of confinement
Discharge & termination plans
Disciplinary procedures
Disciplinary segregation
Disparate Impact
Disparate Treatment
Improper treatment of mentally ill suspects
Restraints : physical
Sanitation / living conditions
Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Suicide prevention
Unconstitutional conditions of confinement
Medical/Mental Health
Intellectual disability/mental illness dual diagnosis
Intellectual/Developmental Disability
Mental health care, general
Mental health care, unspecified
Self-injurious behaviors
Suicide prevention
Mental Disability
Brain injury
Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified
Mental Illness, Unspecified
Type of Facility
Causes of Action State law
Defendant(s) South Carolina Department of Corrections
Plaintiff Description Mentally ill inmates in the South Carolina Department of Corrections
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Declaratory Judgment
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Filing Year 2005
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Website provides information about S.C. class-action lawsuit on behalf of prisoners with mental illness.
Date: 11/04/2016
By: Protection and Advocacy for People with Disabilities (SC)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Civil Rights Injunctions Over Time: A Case Study of Jail and Prison Court Orders
N.Y.U. Law Review
Date: May 2006
By: Margo Schlanger (Washington University Faculty)
Citation: 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 550 (2006)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America's Prisons
Date: Jan. 1, 1998
By: Malcolm M. Feeley & Edward Rubin (UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law & Vanderbilt School of Law Faculty Faculty)
Citation: (1998)
[ Detail ]

No docket sheet currently in the collection
General Documents
Class Certification
PC-SC-0006-0002.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 11/02/2007
Source: Plaintiffs' counsel
Order Setting Forth Applicable Constitutional Standards
PC-SC-0006-0003.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 09/29/2010
Source: Plaintiffs' counsel
Combined Site Visit Reports
PC-SC-0006-0005.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 12/30/2010
Source: Plaintiffs' counsel
PC-SC-0006-0004.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 03/11/2011
Source: Plaintiffs' counsel
PC-SC-0006-0001.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 10/06/2011
Source: Plaintiffs' counsel
Order Granting Judgment in Favor of Plaintiffs
PC-SC-0006-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/08/2014
Source: Papers of Margo Schlanger
Term Sheet for Settlement Agreement
PC-SC-0006-0007.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 01/12/2015
Source: Plaintiffs' counsel
Judges Baxley, J. Michael (State Trial Court)
PC-SC-0006-0002 | PC-SC-0006-0003 | PC-SC-0006-0006
Plaintiff's Lawyers Andrews, Stuart M Jr, (South Carolina)
Westbrook, Daniel J (South Carolina)

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -